Slashdot Mirror


Richest Planetary System Discovered With 7 Planets

eldavojohn writes "The European Southern Observatory has announced that with the aid of their 190 HARPS measurements they have found the solar system with the most planets yet. Furthermore they claim 'This remarkable discovery also highlights the fact that we are now entering a new era in exoplanet research: the study of complex planetary systems and not just of individual planets. Studies of planetary motions in the new system reveal complex gravitational interactions between the planets and give us insights into the long-term evolution of the system.' The star is HD 10180, located 127 light-years away in the southern constellation of Hydrus, that boasts at least five planets (with two more expected) that have the equivalent of our own Titius–Bode law (their orbits follow a regular pattern). Their survey of stars also helped reinforce the correlation 'between the mass of a planetary system and the mass and chemical content of its host star. All very massive planetary systems are found around massive and metal-rich stars, while the four lowest-mass systems are found around lower-mass and metal-poor stars.' While we won't be making a 127 light-year journey anytime soon, the list of candidates for systems of interest grows longer."

41 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Richest? by Skyshadow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At seven planets, I'm reasonably sure this qualifies as the *second* richest planetary system we're aware of.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Richest? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, we've got a full two more planets than...oh wait...

      [tears up]

    2. Re:Richest? by leromarinvit · · Score: 2, Funny

      At seven planets, I'm reasonably sure this qualifies as the *second* richest planetary system we're aware of.

      No no no, you're thinking the wrong way. They've found Magrathea!

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    3. Re:Richest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the planets detected has 1.4 times the mass of the Earth, making it the smallest exoplanet detected yet. Wanna bet on this system having at least one more less massive and currently undetectable planet?

    4. Re:Richest? by DirePickle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All of that stuff's actually still here, except for the couple tons of metal that we sent to other planets.

    5. Re:Richest? by Beetjebrak · · Score: 4, Funny

      Our planet will shake us off easily and life will simply continue. There'll always be prokaryotes, cockroaches and RIAA lawyers to reboot evolution. This planet has actually seen a whole lot worse than what we're doing to it.

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
    6. Re:Richest? by city · · Score: 5, Informative

      4 years ago today we lost her... anniversarys are hard.

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
    7. Re:Richest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So how exactly has the planet lost half it's resources?

      Seems there's no shortage of apostrophes...

    8. Re:Richest? by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not likely given this 1.4 mass planet is one of the two 'missing' planets, and the other is a gas giant with 65 Earth masses. Still an exciting discovery:

      From TFA:

      “We also have good reasons to believe that two other planets are present,” says Lovis. One would be a Saturn-like planet (with a minimum mass of 65 Earth masses) orbiting in 2200 days. The other would be the least massive exoplanet ever discovered, with a mass of about 1.4 times that of the Earth. It is very close to its host star, at just 2 percent of the Earth–Sun distance. One “year” on this planet would last only 1.18 Earth-days.

    9. Re:Richest? by Your.Master · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm right with you on basically everything else you said, but I'd still like to suggest that in modern usage, "its" should be used for the possessive. Yes, it breaks the "rule" that you put an apostrophe for the possessive. It's a standard and useful convention that resolves ambiguity, and I can see essentially no benefit to allowing "it's" for the possessive other than shutting up pretentious douches on forums - which, don't get me wrong, is a noble pursuit.

      I don't see why the rule of "its vs. it's" is any more baseless than the rule I'm inferring from your argument, "an s added to indicate the possessive is always [either allowed to or required] to have an apostrophe prepended". I have, at least, the OED backing me up on this.

      If you go back far enough, you can find very strange spelling, grammar, words, and even letters in the English language, but that doesn't have much bearing on what's easy to understand today.

      Also, insisting that flammable is not a word is a little odd. It's in lots of dictionaries, has latin roots semi-independent of the roots of inflammable, and came into English in the 19th century. Thus, it fits the prescriptivist view as well as the descriptivist one. Yes, inflammable is slightly older.

      I would enjoy a world very much where people stopped getting pissy about starting a sentence with "and" or "because", or splitting infinitives, or other things that are perfectly valid, commonly used, and don't hurt much of anything.

    10. Re:Richest? by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Her"? How one determines the gender of pet rock??

      Obviously you ask, asshole.

    11. Re:Richest? by yyxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All of that stuff's actually still here, except for the couple tons of metal that we sent to other planets.

      The atoms are still here, but they aren't resources anymore because they have become too costly to exploit.

  2. Don't start planning that vacation just yet by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    For everyone here who has seen a lot of science fiction movies or lived in a trailer park where hillbilly meth-heads are routinely abducted by little green men, you might want to keep in mind that 127 light years is a very long way--an almost unimaginable distance, in fact. Most people have absolutely no appreciation for interstellar distances in general (when I was a wee lad, for example, I thought that the next solar system began right at the edge of our own). Let's put it this way: our fastest craft take about 9 years or so to go from the Earth to Pluto. At that same speed, it would take about 125,000 years to reach our next door neighbor (Proxima Centauri). And that's a mere 4.2 light years away (right in our cosmic back yard).

    So if you're planning a visit to this newly discovered system, you'd better pack for about a 4-million-year trip, one way.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by pspahn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you extrapolate Moore's Law in that calculation, Captain Obvious?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    2. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I will when Moore's Law applies to propulsion.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by Ironhandx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its really too bad they partially debunked the guy that proved that the light speed limit was little more than a myth. I'm hoping for new evidence to back up a non-existance of a light speed barrier.

      Theoretically though, if you could somehow make an engine constantly add thrust and never plateau due to relativity(where max speed would be the maximum exit speed of the particles being used for propulsion) you could exceed light speed.

      I really think we need a lab somewhere in space. Something along the terms of the Jump Zero station from the Mass Effect universe where we can experiment in space without too much worry. The current situation means it isn't even possible for a raw space test, there are always fairly significant forces acting on whatever you are doing as long as you are within the solar system. Getting into semi-deep empty space for some experiments may open a lot of doors.

      To conclude: Damn you relativity! DAMN YOU TO HELL! **sob**

    4. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't know if you're being serious or not, so I'll be as succinct as possible. The fastest that a message can be sent to or from anywhere is the speed of light, which might be fast enough for you to waldo a robot on the other side of the planet, but even going out as far as the moon would be a frustrating experience, asking your robot arm to move and it doesn't respond for a few seconds. Sending information (or a physical object obviously) faster than the speed of light leads to violations of causality, which every experiment and human experience today has indicated isn't how the world works.

    5. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Funny

      you might want to keep in mind that 127 light years is a very long way--an almost unimaginable distance, in fact

      I mean, you might think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts compared to space.

    6. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps, however, we can start planning the date when they might come see us...

      My money's on 2057, personally...

    7. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by darien.train · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm being snark-serious. What I wrote is clearly a fantasy that flaunts our current knowledge about how the universe works.

      I think it's only a matter of time before a lot of previously held ideas about light, matter, gravity, etc are going to have to be heavily rethought. The emergence principal has been rearing it's ugly head quite a bit recently in unexpected places and it's possible that the speed of light is an emergent property of the universe, not a hard or set one.

      It's just a hunch, not science, and will likely be wrong but who cares. It's a comment board and I can dream of all the quantum proxy robots I like!

      --
      I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
    8. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by rawler · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The amount of electron-spitting components doubles in density every 18 months."

      There you go. I call it Ulriks law. Spread the word.

    9. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by pspahn · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you're basing a 4 million year trip on current propulsion technology? Seems pretty archaic to me. I certainly hope that in 4 million years enough new ideas would come out that our ideas of propulsion would be long obsolete.

      When I travel to distant systems, I plan on using some super cool technology that I will call Magnetic Focusing Expansion of Relative Space (MFERS for short). The idea is that we just generate a magnetic attraction between two distant points and turn the thing on. It should also have the benefit of shielding the craft from any inconvenient chunks of matter between A and B. Also, this is science. Science that I base entirely on facts that are not factual (yet). Propulsion is for cavemen. Think of this more like Propullsion.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    10. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by jonfr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In reality, 127 light years is not that far away. The most distance objects that we see are close to 13.4 billion light years away from Earth.

      We are seeing the system as it was 127 years ago. So it is a stable system, with planets in stable orbits. The question if there is life there or any planet in size range of the Earth are different questions, and require a different method to figure out.

      This discovery however shows that out solar system is not the only solar system out there with more plants then two to three as have been discovered around other stars before this discovery.

    11. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's funny that you should mention that. They are already developing new propulsion systems that no longer require solid rocket fuel. This one for instance can shorten the trip to mars to just about 3 months:

      Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket

      http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/index.html

      The Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory is developing a new type of rocket technology, the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket. This plasma rocket drive is not powered by conventional chemical reactions as todays rockets are, but by electrical energy that heats the propellant. The propellant is a plasma that reaches extreme temperatures 50,000 and above. Some scientists call this the fourth state of matter.

      This new type of technology could dramatically shorten human transit times between planets (about 3 months to Mars). Not only will planetary missions be fast, but the plasma drive will propel robotic cargo missions with very large payloads (more than 100 tons to Mars). Trip times and payloads are major concerns when using conventional rockets.

    12. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by Bemopolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Theoretically though, if you could somehow make an engine constantly add thrust and never plateau due to relativity(where max speed would be the maximum exit speed of the particles being used for propulsion) you could exceed light speed.

      Except that it's not the plateau of the exit thrust that stops it, it's the increase in inertia of the rocket as it approaches light speed, which approaches infinity as the rocket speed approaches the speed of light.

      To take an optimistic view, time dilation does slow the clock on the ship relative to the Earth, so a passenger on board can get to, say, Alpha Centauri in one day of shipboard time. The guys back at NASA, though, still have to wait eight years to see if you made it (four years for your arrival, four years for your triumphant radio message). Physics is cruel, but it's not arbitrary.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    13. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by Atryn · · Score: 4, Funny

      How can she already be there if she is just arriving?

      I hope someone can come up with a better example... she isn't "just arriving", the light is "just arriving". If you cannot separate one's "self" from the light representation thereof, have fun in front of the mirror!

      Kinda reminds me of the Joo Janta 200 Super Chromatic Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses...

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    14. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by lennier · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, you take a double-blind test panel of psychology students, get them to sign a mental health waiver, and ask them to imagine a set of different astronomical distances.

      Then you develop a graded imagination test: probably something involving Legos and crayons.

      Finally you screen out the students whose minds have boggled due to failure* of imagination, remove them to a secure hardened psychiatric facility**, and continue testing. At 100% failure rate, you have a known unimaginable concept. You then put it in a sealed box with memehazard logos, affix anti-scrying tape, and dispatch to the pareidolon vault at the Department of Unthinkable Conjectures.

      It's not pretty, but it's science.

      * Imagination can fail in many ways, some more spectacular than others
      ** Do not on any account attempt this with psychology lecturers.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    15. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by sea4ever · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wait a second here, this sounds familiar.

      When A arrives, he/she quickly pulls out a telescope or some such device, turns around, and watches her own arrival. How can she already be there if she is just arriving?

      When the speed of sound is broken by a jet, they could actually fly for quite a while, stop, turn around, and then hear the sound of them arriving. Why should light be any different? I don't understand why light and time are seen together. I think it should be something more akin to a sort of faster version of sound..except it's light.

    16. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by nacturation · · Score: 3, Funny

      As far as i remember, homo sapiens is about 200.000 years old.

      Wow, that's a damn good memory you have. What was it like back then?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    17. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by sFurbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need to take into account relativity and its effect on the passing of time. "At the same time" is not well-defined. If two events A and B are outside of each others light cones, there is an observer* who will observe A happening before B, and another observer*, who will observe B happening before A.

      So, if you can affect something which is outside of your light cone, e.g. travel faster than light, some observers will observe you affecting something happening before you acted to affect them.

      *To be more exact, there is an inertial frame of reference, such that an observer in this frame of reference will observe...

    18. Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet by Warbothong · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wait a second here, this sounds familiar.

      When A arrives, he/she quickly pulls out a telescope or some such device, turns around, and watches her own arrival. How can she already be there if she is just arriving?

      When the speed of sound is broken by a jet, they could actually fly for quite a while, stop, turn around, and then hear the sound of them arriving. Why should light be any different? I don't understand why light and time are seen together. I think it should be something more akin to a sort of faster version of sound..except it's light.

      Indeed, the example given was flawed in the way you describe: the light != the event, therefore no paradox. However, there are various ways to arrive at the conclusion of no faster than light travel:

      1) Light travels at the same speed through a vacuum no matter how the observer is moving. This was a well tested experimental result before Einstein explained it theoretically. The light coming out of a car's headlights at 60mph is not going at the speed of light + 60mph, it's going at the same speed as that from a stationary car. This can be explained by modifying Galileo's relativity slightly, so rather than simply adding the velocities there is a slight change applied called a Lorentz transform. This explains how all observers can measure the same speed, and it's physical interpretation is that space contracts and time extends. This effect becomes more and more important as speed increases, until a certain speed at which time is infinitely extended (ie. 'time stops'). This is the 'speed limit' of the Universe, since 'going faster' makes no sense (how can time be stretched longer than infinity?). It also just-so-happens to be the speed at which light travels, so the problem isn't 'beating light', it's that space and time dictate no such thing as faster than this speed, thus even light is stuck, like us, to never go faster.

      2) Discounting air-resistance, it's easier to move things with less mass than those with more mass. Thus light, which has no (rest) mass, is easier to move than anything with mass. Thus light can go faster than any space ship.

      3) The amount of energy bound together into matter is given by E=m*c^2, where m is the rest mass. Thus the total energy for an object is totalE=(m*c^2)+(kinetic energy)+(potential energy). If we want to make an object go faster then its kinetic energy must increase. To do this we can either give it more energy (increasing totalE) or turn some of the other energy into kinetic energy. We can usually turn potential energy into kinetic energy easily (eg. falling via gravity, burning fuel in an engine, etc.), so we can use all of that up and have totalE=(m*c^2)+(kinetic energy)+0. The only other energy we can change to kinetic is the rest mass, which we can do via nuclear reactions or, if we want to convert it all, via matter-antimatter annihilation. If we do the latter then all of the energy is kinetic and we're going as fast as we possibly can. However, the output of matter-antimatter annihilation is light, so we've just proved that we can't go faster than light again! There's no use adding more energy to the light from outside, since that won't change its speed, only the frequency. Adding energy without doing any annihilating will either require adding light, or else adding some massive particles which will actually slow us down by increasing the rest mass.

      4) From a fundamental perspective, we can build up a theory of the Universe without needing space or time. We start by saying that there are 'events', and then we relate those to each other using partial orders by saying things like 'event A occurs before event B', which seems to imply time. However, what we find is that it's perfectly acceptable to say 'event A occurs before event B, event B occurs before event C and event C occurs before event A' (in the same way that rock > scissors, scissors > paper but paper > rock). We can account for such things by noticing that from each eve

  3. 7 Planets? Pff... by spike2131 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know of a solar system that has 8 planets. Used to have 9.

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    1. Re:7 Planets? Pff... by belthize · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think they're limiting it to real solar systems, Alderaan doesn't count.

  4. GTFO by Smelly+Jeffrey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "the solar system with the most planets yet"

    There is only one Sol. There can only be one System Sol. Anything else is a star system.

    1. Re:GTFO by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Solar does not mean star. I don't know who taught you that, but they are wrong. Solar means The Sun (and is extrapolated to incorporate everything directly influenced by The Sun). The Sun (Also known as Sol) is the only one known as THE Sun and thus we call it THE Solar system.

      Only rarely does someone innacurately call another star A sun, because its actually a star, and not THE sun. You'll notice they even said in the summary

      The star is HD 10180, located 127 light-years away...

      They didn't say "The sun is HD 10180..."

      So, to review, there is only one The Sun, AKA Sol, and the system of planets around it is known as The Solar System. Everything else is a star, and thus should be a star system. You could say they have discovered a star system, known as the HD 10180 system, which includes 7 planets.

      Jeffrey, regardless of how much he smells, is quite correct in the astrological terminology.

  5. To put this in some perspective by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would require a radio telescope with a 1 Km dish (or many with equal collecting area as well as comparable resolving power) to be able to detect an Earth-sized planet 1 AU from its sun at a distance of 100 LY from Earth at a resolution of a single pixel. (Information courtesy of the director of the SETI Institute during an on-site lecture at NASA.) This is 127 LY away and some of the planets are closer to their sun still. The current proposal for the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) telescope has it distributed across continents - boosting the resolving power - but the collecting area might still be too feeble to directly observe a whole lot.

    (The proposal would likely need to be upgraded to a Square Mile Array or larger before you could do much in the way of direct observation. The SKA project has been painfully slow to advance and, frankly, upgrading it to the size necessary to actually look at Earth-sized alien worlds at that kind of distance just isn't going to happen. It's unclear to me if SKA as it stands will ever really happen.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  6. impending Thursday announcement from NASA-Kepler by peter303 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The rumor is they found some rather complex systems with the Kepler space-probe and will announce that on Aug 26. That probe stares at the same 150K patch of stars for years at a time looking for star-dimming indicative of transisting planet. Other phenomena cause dimming, so they examine the light curve carefully and look for periodic orbital repeats to establish planets. There were several hundred dimmings observed the first few months of operation. Probably many times that by now. Some of this dimming data has been released to the public already. Some is reserved for astronomers to double-check with other instruments.

  7. Master of Orion 2 by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else remember playing Master of Orion, and finding a planet, where the info-box says "Ultra rich, heavy-G".

    I always thought that sounded like a nickname for a gangsta rapper.

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  8. Re:How funny by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How did EU suddenly get involved with European Southern Observatory?...

    (plus generally, healthy competition is nice & there's a lot of crossparticipation in many projects anyway)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  9. "...the Solar System's eight planets..." by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nine.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  10. hyperboling much? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We only have one more in our own, and we're killing the earth,

    What the hell does this has to do with what is being discussed?

    our planet don't even contain half of the ressources it took billions of year to produce.

    Source or citation for this please? And whoever voted this post as insightful, please go back to school and learn some analytical thinking (or to middle school if you have to.)